From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Yushu Chen <gentcys@gmail.com>
Cc: katja.henke@foo.ag
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19034: Recursive function with sql_body can replace an existing function but can not be created on it's own
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 14:17:33 +0200
Message-ID: <8dec121e2d3bfc1149d36359345fbce1faa087aa.camel@cybertec.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1030106.1756999498@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <19034-de0857b4f94ec10c@postgresql.org>
<CAP5x3pZvk6D9b9mmKBEYKqZvJcDpH5OfZ419aVgzr+xXpo4O=w@mail.gmail.com>
<1030106.1756999498@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, 2025-09-04 at 11:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Given that recursive SQL functions are a tiny-minority use case
> and there's already a perfectly serviceable way to make them
> (ie use an old-style body), I seriously doubt that we'll do
> anything about this request.
Sure, but creating a dump that will fail to load is not good.
I don't have a smarter idea that dumping standard SQL functions
in two statements like you suggested...
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gentcys@gmail.com, katja.henke@foo.ag, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19034: Recursive function with sql_body can replace an existing function but can not be created on it's own
In-Reply-To: <8dec121e2d3bfc1149d36359345fbce1faa087aa.camel@cybertec.at>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox